A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Should we be thanking Bunning?
Posted: Mar 1, 2010
Bunning is not getting support from his party so he's not running for re-election. He's not a happy man. He's still filibustering the bill to extend unemployment benefits. His rude language concerning the unemployed in this country was documented a few days ago. Now he's accused of flipping off an ABC producer who asked him for an interview.
His filibuster is showing the public just what goes on when even one little man wants to obstruct congress. There is no way to cover up this filibuster, and although it's a sad thing it has a bright side in that constituents are seeing a prime example of NO.
Is he acting up just to screw with the republican party because they won't support his re-election? If not, he's doing a good job of it anyway.
NJ
;
Reality check: This is what GOP obstruction really looks like. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I'm with you on the thanks to Bunning point. Not only is there no place to hide, but I don't think 8 months will be enough time for those directly impacted by Bunning and the party of no (who remains silent and complicit) to forgive and forget. Take a look at what difference a day can make....
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/01/v-fullstory/1507212/who-really-gets-hurt-from-hold.html
1. The Department of Transportation furloughed nearly 2,000 employees without pay Monday. Furloughs affected employees at the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Always a good idea to put a face on the figures.
2. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "This means that construction workers will be sent home from job sites because federal inspectors must be furloughed."
3. $38 million in project funding for Idaho's Nez Perce National Forest and Fernan Lakes Idaho Panhandle National Forest cut off.
4. $86 million for bridge replacements in the Washington, D.C. area cut off.
5. 1.2 million unemployed workers, including 14,000 in Kentucky, would lose federal jobless benefits this month. About one-third of these will lose benefits in the first two weeks of the month.
6. Letting the highway program lapse could mean an estimated 90,000 jobs lost.
7. As many as 2 million families could lose access to local television because a copyright law expired overnight.
http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/highway-projects-jobless-aid-halt-over-congressional-impasse-307144.html
8. 41 highway projects shut down because federal inspectors were off the job.
http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=12055809
9. Hundreds of thousands of people ineligible for COBRA tax credits for health coverage.
10. Thousands of small businesses lose access to credit.
11. Public safety programs across the country halted.
12. Critical transportation safety personnel furloughed.
13. 600,000 doctors across the country who care for our seniors and veterans subject to a 20 % pay cut.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRealXfnb4pWSBz1cZ2DDlNEJKegD9E5TSD00
14. Among the construction sites where work will be halted: the $36 million replacement of the Humpback Bridge on the George Washington Parkway in Virginia; $15 million in bridge construction and stream rehabilitation in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; and the $8 million resurfacing of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi.
15. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the furloughs are expected to disrupt safety programs that operate in partnership with states and advocacy groups, including drunken driving, child passenger safety and motorcycle safety programs.
Classic example of reductionism - and oversimplification
[ In Reply To ..]The question should be asked: Given that Congress JUST passed a law requiring spending programs to be paid for, what did they mean if they can then turn around and say "But THIS program is an exception"...or "We didn't mean THAT program"?
Another issue that has long plagued Congress is the unholy practice of packing totally unrelated spending provisions into one appropriations bill, in effect trying to create "poison pills" that leave a legislator with the choice of rejecting all-or-none.
So - if he doesn't want to fund a program he thinks is wasteful, he's got to vote against 10 others that he might otherwise support.
I am not taking a position about Bunning's actions, just pointing up that we might want to do some root-cause analysis on this situation and see whether there aren't some issues that go much deeper than this specific filibuster. We might even ask ourselves whether the power of filibuster really squares with our notions of democratic government in the first place.
What happened to wistful musings about no label rhetoric? - Just a fleeting moment, I guess....
[ In Reply To ..]Your question: They meant to amend and reinstate existing Paygo rules that had been modified in 2009 to accommodate the Recovery Act passage. Now for those of us who process stasis messages, a couple of facts are in order. There are Paygo provisions for emergency spending and prescribed rules on their application for both House and Senate debates. You will find the link to that information below (CRS report). My question would be that one has to wonder why Bunning has chosed this particular bill to take his stand, especially considering the evidence found in his voting record that indicates his willingness to pass legislation that is not paid for in advance in the past, not to mention his general hypocrisy:
1. Voted against Paygo, but adamantly invokes Paygo to obstruct.
2. Voted for unemployment benefits extension when it was in the larger bill containing all the GOP pork, including 31 billion dollars of tax breaks to megacorporations. These measures were not paid for in advance, so why is he suddenly against it now? Could he be just another typical GOP whiner protesting Reid’s removal of the pork that has turned the tides? Here’s a couple of other programs he voted for that were NOT PAID FOR IN ADVANCE, despite the fact that Paygo was in effect at the time:
3. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut for top 1% Americans.
4. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tax cuts would increase budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and by $340 billion by 2008.
5. Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.
6. Supplemental funding bills for the Iraq War.
Personally, I believe only part of the $10 billion version is emergency in nature: unemployment benefits extension and cutting off funds that affect job retention. I am sure doctors taking a pay cut in Medicare payments and rural citizens who have lost local TV reception would disagree.
My assessment is based on the economic destruction that ensues by removing unemployment benefits cash flow from the economy, since this money typically is spent almost immediately and does on end up in static holding patterns, and lay offs and jobs loss that add new applicants to the unemployment rolls. I do not think I am alone to believe that the imminent loss of the ability to maintain shelter and feed oneself would be considered an emergency, at least from the personal perspective of the individual.
I agree with your observation about unholy practice.
As to root cause analysis, I will be commenting on that a bit later (have an errand to run). That is another fairly meaty issue worth spending a little time on.
Link to Congressional Research Service Report
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1443/m1/
http://www.opencongress.org/blog/PAYGO
It's also exactly what "liberal obstruction" looks like - when practiced by your side.
[ In Reply To ..]I'm sure you don't want to go into the history of Democrat filibusters, or the "results" of those.
Self-righteousness is SO very ugly - and usually embarassing for those who indulge in it.
Facts cannot be self righteous and cannot be spun. - Thats why some find them so scarey,..
[ In Reply To ..]and are so obvioulsy repulsed whenever anybody uses them. When faced with a set of facts, if unable to counter with another set of facts supportive of the opposing view, some try to resort to personal attack, diversion, distraction or changing the subject. This, of course, leaves the original set of facts unanswered and unchallenged, a circmstance that tends to render those facts more credible, not less.
Fact: $10 billion bill has passed the House and unanimously passed in the senate, except for 1. Fact: 2000 federal workers, 400,000 unemployed workers and their families, 2000 families in rural communities, 600,000 doctors and untold numbers of construction workers have been directly impacted in a single day by Senator Bunning's filibuster. The longer he remains recalcitrant, the numbers of persons directly impacted grows exponentially. The stress, anxiety, tension, misery and inconvenience he is willing to inflict is beyond measure.
Fact: Senator Bunning has a personal beef with McConnell and other GOPs and is throwing a typical GOP tantrum over the removal of tax cuts for the rich. Fact: Bunning voted against Paygo and for many bills that were not funded ahead of time (and were definitely not emergency measures) while Paygo was in effect. Why? Because they contained huge tax cuts for the top 1% of Americans. Fact: Given his past voting record, this is a mean-spirited hypocritical leviathan, yet par for the course of late as we have seen broadcast all over the media (GOP hypocrisy and obstructionism). This fact also helps to explain the absence of a direct answer in your post.
Fact: Paygo contains measures for emergency spending exemptions and guidelines by which those determinations are made. At least in the case of unemployed workers, emergency could easily be defined in terms of potential loss of shelter and food. I support Paygo. I also believe parts of this particular bill qualify under emergency provisions. I believe that Bunning has chosen the wrong place, wrong time and wrong issue to drive his point home.
I also believe that there is more to the story than simply Paygo. He is a bitter, unhappy old man who has displayed rather strange behaviors in the recent past. I believe he is using this bully pulpit to get in his last jabs toward HIS OWN PARTY MEMEBERS who he feels betrayed him, which I think is every bit as important (if not more) to him than any political point he is trying to showcase.
At what cost is my question and who is paying the price? For those of us middle class folks who are beleaguered by the economy and bewildered by the behavior of Congress and its response to the situation, this is a perfect test case to see exactly who is trying to legislate on our behalf and who is not.
BTW, I would welcome a discussion on the history of the use of filibuster. I challenge you to find a single instance in that history that can compare to this particular filibuster (in terms of causal effect as defined in human impact) that was launched by a democrat.
Bunning and the "filibuster" - sm
[ In Reply To ..]"A filibuster is one of two things. One, an actual filibuster where a Senator gets control of the Senate floor and will yield only for a question while continuing to speak, thereby delaying consideration of a measure. Picture Mr. Smith goes to Washington (if you haven’t seen it, do). Two, a “filibuster” under Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate whereby debate is continuous unless “cloture” is filed to shut off debate on a measure under consideration and the vote is 3/5ths or more of the Senate. Senate Democrats did not call this bill up to give it floor time. If they had thought it important enough, they could have. Instead, they simply asked for a “UC,” or unanimous consent to pass it. Senator Bunning simply does not wish to give his consent – i.e. he does not want to vote for it.
No one is required to give unanimous consent to any request for it. Senators normally give it, though, in order to keep business moving. Withholding unanimous consent simply means that the Senate will have to hold procedural votes that it would otherwise waive in order to finish its work. That’s not a filibuster.
Furthermore, Bunning’s action is based on the demand by Democrats and the White House to restore the pay-go rule, as Heritage’s Brian Darling explains: Liberals are up in arms because Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is blocking a bill that would extend unemployment benefits, extend health insurance subsidies (COBRA), extend highway funding, increase Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians (Doc Fix), extend a temporary “flood insurance” program and continue aid for small business programs. The bill, H.R. 4691, was introduced and passed the House on February 25th by a voice vote. When the bill came up in the Senate, Sen. Bunning objected and requested a vote to offset the estimated $10 billion cost of this bill over the next month. With the two words “I object” Sen. Bunning may save taxpayers $10 billion and Sen. Bunning has provided America a stark example of how Members of Congress refuse to pay for new spending initiatives.
Bunning said of the bill “if we can’t find $10 billion to pay for it, we’re not going to pay for anything.” A month ago, Congress passed something called pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting when they increased the the statutory limit of allowable national debt to $14.29 trillion, a $1.9 trillion increase. The current PAYGO rules are loaded with exceptions and loopholes, yet many saw the new PAYGO rules as a step in the right direction to restrain some out of control spending. The problem is that Congress seems to waive the PAYGO rule rather than offset one cent of new spending. â€Â¦
Basically, liberals in Congress love the idea of PAYGO, yet they refuse to enforce the statutory requirements that all new spending be offset. They do this by designating all new spending as an “Emergency Designation.” This is feel good politics at its worst, because the left can claim they are for PAYGO, yet PAYGO has yet to restrain any spending. Furthermore, the vote on PAYGO in the House helped pave the way for a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit. Therefore one can argue that PAYGO actually increased spending in the Congress.
Bunning isn’t even opposing the bill, or at least not its purpose. He’s objecting to the financing, which violates the pay-go rules Democrats just imposed.
Pay attention to the misreporting on this issue, because it will happen again when Republicans begin using the same process to slow down reconciliation. Coburn threatened to withhold unanimous consent on bill readings during the ObamaCare debate last December, and wound up forcing the clerk to read the bill aloud for hours. If Democrats decide to cram ObamaCare through reconciliation, it won’t just be Bunning withholding unanimous consent, and not just on ObamaCare, either.
Bunning isn’t filibustering. If Democrats want to get to a vote, they can with or without unanimous consent. If their bill is well supported, it will eventually pass. But after the scolding a few weeks ago from Obama on deficit spending and the Democrats’ victory dance on pay-go, the real reason Democrats are unhappy about Bunning’s action isn’t because it’s a filibuster, but because it shows their hypocrisy on deficit spending. And the American media needs to do its research on Senate procedure before declaring the withholding of unanimous consent a “filibuster.”
Filibuster - NJ
[ In Reply To ..]Bunning is filibustering by objecting to letting a bill go to a unanimous vote and forcing a procedural delay. He is just using filibuster in a way we may not have seen before.
Generally, cloture would stop a filibuster but leaders of both the dems and the republicans signed off on passing the bill with a floor vote to allow it to go to unanimous consent. Don't be fooled into thinking this means it couldn't be filibustered. Using filibuster in this instance throws the issue back to procedural delays including cloture.
Bunning (who didn't vote for PayGo) insisted on using PayGo as justification for playing the spoiler. His history doesn't show he was concerned with deficits before and his arguments are pure hypocrisy. He is thumbing his nose and flipping the bird to us all. Silly old man.
NJ
Rebuttal. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I appreciate your information about filibuster. I used the term in response to the other poster who referred to Bunning’s behavior that way, but I know the difference and should have been more precise.
I take issue with your comments about Senate Democrats. Why would they call the bill up to give it floor time when it had already been debated? During that process, as long as the larger measure contained 31 billion dollars worth of tax breaks for large corporations and plenty of GOP pork, indications were that it enjoyed bipartisan support. Reid had second thoughts about the pork and removed itâ€Â¦and that’s the source of the real rub. I did not understand that move at the time, but I do now, and I think he did the right thing.
No one could predict the abrupt about face, not just by Bunning, but by the entire GOP Senate wing, who are complicit in their silence, especially in view of the looming deadlines on all the measures at hand. Bunning himself has voted for unemployment benefits that did not include budget offsets (in spite of the fact that Paygo was in effect) twice in the past. It was really beyond any realistic expectation that unemployed workers, their families, federal employees and middle class construction workers would become a political football. I hope this is a lesson that the democrats take to heart and do not forget anytime soon. Yes, the GOP is capable of the unimaginable. This was not a question of the importance of the bill. It was a question of trusting the GOP to follow through and do what they said they were going to do, i.e. support the measure. But no, they won’t play ball without pork bribes and tax cut toys. They prefer to throw tantrums and fits, sulk, grandstand and withold essential funding that will eventually pass.
I am not arguing with Bunning's “right” to withhold consent. No one can force him to do what he indicated he would do before (support the porked up version), anymore than they can force the GOP to act on behalf of the interests of unemployed workers instead of falsely perceived short-term political gains. They don’t know it yet, but with this issue it is painfully clear that they have overplayed their hand this time, just like Gingrich did when he shut down the government. Can you say backfire?
Why don’t you try peddling your sterile explanation of Senate procedural votes to the 400,000 workers and their families whose benefits were lost? I’m sure they will be comforted to know that it’s not a filibuster.
I am very aware of Paygo and the part it is playing in Bunning’s objection. I also gave plenty of details in my previous post of his hypocrisy and other issues that are contributing to his actions. I notice you did not reply to those issues. I mentioned them to put Paygo into perspective.
In any case, Paygo has provisions for emergency spending, so until that so-called loophole is closed (it has been in Paygo since its inception), it is a viable argument and legitimate interpretation of existing statutes. I would suggest that the laid off and unemployed workers, federal employees, MDs and rural folks should not have to wait for them to change the Senate rules to suit you and Mr. Bunning’s red herring, unless of course you cannot agree that imminent loss of shelter and food does not qualify as an emergency.
Your passage regarding “two words” makes for dramatic theater, but back here in the real world, the question looms: Why did Bunning not object on that basis during the debates on the $85 billion porked up version, particularly on the unfunded tax cut for corporations? Huh? Your attempt to make him sound so noble for “saving taxpayers $10 billion” falls flat on its face when looking at the larger picture. I agree with Paygo in its entirety, including the part that allows for emergency spending, which I talked about in my other post. Another issue you seem to be overlooking.
Maybe you are all impressed at the GOP use of stall tactics, the frozen government, lack of progress, their refusal to do the jobs they are paid to do, obstructing, hypocrisy, sabotage, kill-bill, just-say-no mentality,etc., but I can guarantee you that this one action most certainly holds the promise of translating into a substantial vote loss for the GOP in November. Do you not understand that for at least 400,000 people in the first week. 1.2 million by the end of the month, potentially 5 million by June, plus 2 million rural residents without access to local TV, 600,000 MDs waiting for restored medicare payments, 2000 federal workers and untold numbers of laid off construction workers, eventually is not good enough?
I am not interested in process when it comes to HCR. I am interested in bottom line results, long overdue. Besides, the impact of that legislation is not direct and does not hold the potential to render families of unemployed workers in a recession economy homeless and starving. Forgive me if I forego further comment on that GOP boondoggle.
You surely must be - joking
[ In Reply To ..]One could choose from dozens of examples, but you might investigate the Democrats' filibuster of Social Security reforms proposed by Bush that would have kept us out of that mess now.
Piece of advice for you: Know what you're talking about, or don't speak.
I know exactly what I am talking about. - You are avoiding the question.
[ In Reply To ..]I never said dems did not filibuster. The challenge was for you to come up with an example of democratic filibuster that had the kind of direct and immediate impact in terms of stress, anxiety, worry and misery to such vast numbers of middle class America and imposed such unthinkable inconvenience on federal and state (unemployment) agencies. I understand your avoidance, since you will never find one.
Privatization of social security never made it even to the bill stage, let alone to the floor where it could be filibustered. Ws brilliant idea never made it out of committee because it was so unpopular, it could never get a senate majority. Pubs did not pursue it any further. Thank God for small favors. What kind of mess do you suppose we avoided had Social Security been privatized? Careful. This is a trick question. Hint: Stock market crash, recession, protracted recovery, dysfunctional Congress, obstruction, legislative dead ends.
Reminder: Filibuster does not happen in committee. Better know what you are talking about before you speak next time.
Read it and - weep
[ In Reply To ..]This from that bastion of conservatism, Slate. In particular, note that only 3% of the Democratic filibusters were supported by public opinion, while 64% the Republican filibusters were in line with what the majority of voters wanted.
Kleenex?
Unfortunately, you're not - quite right
[ In Reply To ..]The Social Security bill was marked up and ready to come out of committee when the Democrats announced their intention to filibuster the bill. The Republican leadership assessed that there were not enough votes for cloture to end the filibuster and so the bill died in committee.
It isn't considered smart legislative leadership to bring a bill to the floor for a vote knowing in advance that it cannot pass.
Filibuster or the threat of filibuster together with apparent inability to pass cloture - the outcome is the same.
Nice try though!
Similar Messages:
Bunning Burns OutMar 02, 2010
Bunning has accepted an offer originally made last Thursday (the day he started his one-man filibuster). He'll stop his filibuster in exchange for one vote on an amendment by him regarding how to pay for the 30-day unemployment extension. He didn't take the deal last Thursday because he knew he didn't have to backing to get it passed. Now he's folding under the pressure from dems and republicans alike and taking the offer to try to save some face. I wonder how much governmen ...